A group for Christians from around the world to explore their faith and discover God in one light. All are welcome, even if your not a Christian, but please respect our belief. http://forums.delphiforums.com/jesusplace/start

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has toured flood-ravaged areas of the US state of Louisiana, days after heavy rains forced thousands to flee their homes.The disaster has been compared in scope to Super Storm Sandy, which hit the New York area in 2012.But critics say the floods near Baton Rouge, which have killed at least 13, have received far less attention.Mr Trump called out President Barack Obama for not visiting the state.Responding to critics who said Mr Obama should also tour the region, the White House announced on Friday that the president would visit the Baton Rouge area on Tuesday.While visiting the hard-hit area of East Baton Rouge Parish, Mr Trump said he was "just here to help".A woman told the New York businessman she was happy he was not somewhere playing golf, to which Mr Trump responded, "Somebody is, somebody that shouldn't be," referring to Mr Obama.Mr Obama, who is on vacation on Martha's Vineyard, has received regular updates on the devastating flooding, according to the White House.The visit, which included Vice-Presidential nominee Mike Pence, was a departure for Mr Trump, who has favoured large rallies over one-on-one campaigning with voters.How bad is Louisiana flooding?Mr Trump's new campaign chief Kellyanne Conway told ABC News that Mr Trump and Mr Pence were "going to help people on the ground who are in need".Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.Media captionBefore and After: Louisiana floodingThe state's Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, cautioned Mr Trump that visit should not just be a "photo-op". Governor Edwards urged Mr Trump to volunteer his time or contribute money to the relief effort.The region's main newspaper, The Advocate of Baton Rouge, wrote an editorial this week urging President Obama to cut short his holiday to visit the area, which was also affected by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.Mary Poche carries items she recovered from her flooded homeImage copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionClean-up efforts have begun in LouisianaFlooding is seen on 14 August in Denham Springs, LouisianaImage copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionMore than 20,000 people have been forced to evacuate"We've seen this story before in Louisiana, and we don't deserve a sequel. In 2005, a fly-over by a vacationing President George W. Bush became a symbol of official neglect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina," the newspaper wrote.Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who toured the area on Thursday, said the federal government is playing an active role in relief efforts.Governor Edwards also said the security precautions needed for a presidential visit could complicate the recovery operation. He said the state would welcome a visit by Mr Obama in a week or so.

Trump Vows to Screen Immigrants for Anti-Semitism, Keep Out OffendersBy Abra Forman August 17, 2016 , 12:30 pm“Hashem trieth the righteous; but the wicked and him that loveth violence His soul hateth.” Psalms 11:5 (The Israel Bible™)

image: http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/donald-trump.jpgDonald Trump talks to supporters at the Peabody Opera House in Downtown Saint Louis on March 11, 2016. (Photo: Gino Santa Maria / Shutterstock.com)Potential immigrants to America would be screened for anti-Semitic sentiments as part of an “extreme vetting” process under a Donald Trump administration, said the GOP presidential nominee at a speech on Monday. He also said that Israel would be a key ally in fighting radical Islam if he were elected.

Of the rigorous vetting process he hopes to impose, “We should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people,” said Trump in a policy address in Youngstown, Ohio.

He suggested a return to the more rigorous policies of Cold War days, in which people were examined for communist sympathies or ties to the Soviet Union. “In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is long overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. I call it extreme vetting. I call it extreme, extreme vetting,” he proposed.

He said that the process would include an “ideological screening test” which would isolate not only people with radical Islamist beliefs, but anyone holding beliefs “hostile” to American society and culture, including anti-Semites.

“In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles,” Trump asserted.He pointed to France as a cautionary tale in this respect and mentioned anti-Semitism specifically as a potential immigration danger.

“Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have brought their anti-Semitic attitudes with them,” he said.

Trump’s strong immigration policies, which include banning all Muslims from entering the US and halting immigration from volatile parts of the globe, have been the subject of much criticism and controversy during his campaign.

Some responded to his latest suggestion by arguing that many of the refugees coming from war-torn regions face the same terror and intolerance that Trump wants to keep out.

“Suspending immigration would only trap those who need refuge most,” said the American Defamation League in a statement.

In the same speech, Trump once more called Israel America’s “greatest ally”, saying that the two countries would work together to battle the spread of radical Islam and terror, a fight in which Israel is already deeply engaged.

TRUMP COUNTER-TERROR SPEECH: THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLYWhile he laid out an impressive strategy that includes uplifting Muslim reformers, he also vindicated decades of Islamist propagandaBY RYAN MAURO Tue, August 16, 2016Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump outlined his proposed counter-terrorism strategy yesterday. He laid out an impressive ideology-based strategy that includes uplifting Muslim reformers; however, he also vindicated decades of Islamist propaganda by emphasizing his opinion that the U.S. should have taken Iraq’s oil from its people, requiring a long-term military occupation to protect it.The GoodThe parts of the speech about waging an ideological war on radical Islam were a breath of fresh air.READ MOREhttps://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/trump-counter-terror-speech-good-bad-ugly

It makes sense, considering the people that have suffered the most from ISIS’s attacks and military actions. They have hurt Syria--Turkey’s old rival--and the Kurds. Now, the administration and Clinton had something to gain from ISIS rising to power, as well.

The administration wanted to see the last tyrannical dictator deposed from the Middle East. The administration had either begun or supported the overthrow of every secular government in the region. And the region has been burning since.

So when Trump said that this was all the Administration’s fault, everyone shrugged it off as ranting and childish name calling.

Breitbart reported:

“No,” Trump replied. “I meant, he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”And if it was not for Judicial Watch, we might still not know that Trump was right.

Breitbart continues:

That opposition, at the time spearheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), soon morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS.

The report appears to have originated from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Iraq, well before their intelligence product was tarnished by political interference from top commanders in 2014 aimed at diminishing the threat from ISIS.

Here’s what the report, originally stamped SECRET, actually says:AQI, through the spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Muhammad al- Adnani… is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime…

Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts… [emphasis mine]

There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasak and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want…This proves that both America and her allies are responsible for the creation of the Islamic State. You might say it is an accident of history, an unintended consequence of trying to do the right thing. I would say that it was done with the best analysis and eyes wide open. They knew they were dealing with a snake. They should not now act surprised when they get bit.

http://endingthefed.com/trump-brought-down-house-last-night-then-walked-outside-got-surprise-of-a-lifetime.htmlTrump Brought Down House Last Night, Then Walked Outside & Got Surprise Of A Lifetime!POLITICSAugust 13, 2016 A+A-EMAILPRINTLast night, Trump held one of the biggest rallies yet in Kissimmee, Florida. Thsi is the same town that Hillary held a rally in and invited the father of the Orlando terrorist.She only got like 20 people to show up. Trump sold out the Silver Spurs Arena. That arena can fit 8,000 people. And there was overflow. And everyone there was excited actually to see him.Trump is getting far more support than Hillary. She has to fake her support because she is the devil.

*** And, then Trump walked outside.

Look what happened.Police from all around Kissimmee heard that Donald Trump was coming and escorted him back to his plane.

*** How frickin’ cool is that?!?

The only way you would ever see that many officers around Hillary would be when the arrest her.

Don’t believe the polls. Don’t let any of your friends believe the polls. Share this article with every Trump voter you know. Share it on your Facebook page. We back Trump. We don’t believe the lying media. Trump is going to win. (h/t Politicalcult)

“I have been hesitant to offer any kind of support for either candidate in the US presidential election but I now feel that to not voice my concern would be a dereliction of my duty as the Holy See. A strong and free America is vitally important in maintaining a strong and free world and in that sense what happens in American elections affects us all. The Rule of Law is the backbone of the American government as it is in any nation that strives for freedom and I now fear that the Rule of Law in America has been dealt a dangerous blow. The FBI, in refusing to recommend prosecution after admitting that the law had been broken on multiple occasions by Secretary Clinton, has exposed itself as corrupted by political forces that have become far too powerful. Though I don’t agree with Mr. Trump on some issues, I feel that voting against the powerful political forces that have corrupted the entire American federal government is the only option for a nation that desires a government that is truly for the people and by the people. For this primary reason I ask, not as the Holy Father, but as a concerned citizen of the world that Americans vote for Donald Trump for President of the United States.”

With the mainstream media in a tizzy over Donald Trump allegedly calling for violence against Hillary Clinton (an accusation he denies), perhaps it's time we take a trip down memory lane and look back at the incidents in which Democrats called for violence against Republicans.

Our first incident comes via Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit, who catalogues the numerous times in which President Obama's issued ominous threats against his political opposition. Perhaps the most notable incident came in 2008 when then-candidate Obama told an audience in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun...Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl."

At the time, Obama's opponent, Senator John McCain, accused the Democratic candidate of "playing the politics of fear."

Candidate Obama also notably told his followers to get aggressive while campaigning for him, telling them to "get in their faces" and "argue with neighbors".

The left-wing media has also made crass comments and jokes in which they called for violence against Republicans. President George W. Bush often found himself in the crosshairs of such calls.

In one particularly egregious incident, CBS's Late Late Show With Craig Kilborn, showed a photograph of President Bush with the words "Snipers Wanted" superimposed over the image.

In 2006, Hollywood produced a movie entitled "Death of a President", in which George W. Bush is shown being gunned down by a sniper.

CNN has been struggling recently for obvious reasons, but to think that they could go as far as to completely fabricate a story about Trump meeting the Secret Service is sickening.

That’s right. CNN released an article earlier today claiming that Donald Trump was forced to meet with the Secret Service following his comments on 2nd Amendment voters stopping Hillary.

However, within less than an hour Trump posted this statement on Twitter humiliating the crumbling liberal news network.

Follow Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpNo such meeting or conversation ever happened - a made up story by "low ratings" @CNN.9:49 PM - 10 Aug 2016 · United States, United States 5,444 5,444 Retweets 15,457 15,457 likesIsn’t that incredible? Even though CNN is a Hillary Clinton mouthpiece, you would think they would at least have the sense to research their story first.

Now they have ruined the remaining threads of credibility they were holding on to. CNN is about as reliable a news source as The Onion at this point.

So you have two options at this point. You can trust a straight shooter like Donald Trump who knows what he did and did not say, or you can trust the liars over at CNN and their anonymous “Secret Service Official” who leaked the information to them. (H/T – Red State Watcher)

Let’s share this around the internet with the caption “SHAME ON CNN!” so that we can show we stand united behind Donald Trump despite their lies.

Sharing on networks like Facebook and Twitter are the best way people like us can take the power of the elections into our own hands.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/voter-fraud-is-now-an-inalienable-rightVOTER FRAUD IS NOW AN INALIENABLE RIGHT…ACCORDING TO THE 5TH CIRCUITBy: Daniel Horowitz | July 20, 2016Voter fraud is now an inalienable right. A 9-6 en banc ruling from the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a 2011 Texas law (SB 14) requiring that every voter showing up at the polls presents a valid photo ID, the same requirement of someone who purchases a pack of Sudafed.

“SB 14 has a discriminatory effect on minorities' voting rights in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As discussed below, we remand for a consideration of the appropriate remedy in light of the impending general election," wrote Judge Catharina Haynes, a George W. Bush appointee, for the majority of the appeals court. The en banc ruling upheld a previous three-judge panel appeals court ruling and district court decision all asserting that the requirement for photo ID as opposed to non-photo forms of ID, such as bank statements and utility bills, discriminates against minorities.

If we don’t strip the courts of the [perceived] power to overturn the most basic, common sense laws governing abortion, immigration, marriage, religious liberty, redistricting, and voter ID, we will lose every last vestige of representative democracy.

The six dissenting justices, led by Judge Edith Jones retorted that there was absolutely no evidence under the sun to suggest this law is discriminatory against minorities or was passed with discriminatory intent. “By keeping this latter claim alive, the majority fans the flames of perniciously irresponsible racial name-calling,” wrote an exasperated Jones.

Teddy Roosevelt once said that “[T]here is no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious as the corruption of the electorate.” The notion that a state, which has almost full authority over the methods and procedures of elections, may not prevent voter fraud by asking the same requirements to protect the franchise as what is needed to obtain the most mundane products and services in life is scandalous. That they would use the cause of civil rights, which was designed to prevent legitimate disenfranchisement of blacks, as a weapon to disenfranchise the entire electorate at the hands of rampant fraudulent voting is downright offensive.

Moreover, as I note in Stolen Sovereignty, there is a widespread problem with non-citizens voting in our country. Texas has about 4.5 million immigrants, including over 1.7 million illegal aliens. According to a 2014 analysis referenced in the Washington Post, more than 14% of all non-citizens in the country are illegally registered to vote. Texas clearly has a vital interest in advancing the simple and reasonable requirement of presenting a valid photo ID in order to protect all U.S. citizens – white, black and anyone else. Only the legislative branch of the federal government, not the courts, was given authority in Article I Section 4 to “alter such regulations” of the states on electoral decisions, and even then, according to Hamilton it was only to be done under “extraordinary circumstances.” The notion that unelected courts can steal the sovereignty of the people and the state concerning the most vital protection of the most sacred tool of democracy would be unfathomable to our Founders.

While I released my book during a news cycle dominated by presidential politics, the news from the courts today proves every aspect of my thesis with a new case every day. If we don’t strip the courts of the [perceived] power to overturn the most basic, common sense laws governing abortion, immigration, marriage, religious liberty, redistricting, and voter ID, we will lose every last vestige of representative democracy. Any half-decent measure we aspire to pass by winning elections with conservatives (an arduous task to begin with) will be countermanded by an eminent tribunal. As I warn in Stolen Sovereignty, not only are the courts deciding every social issue (in favor of liberals), they are the final arbiters of issues of sovereignty, franchise and elections, thereby preventing us from even winning elections fairly in order to implement our agenda in the first place. The existing 14th Amendment, Voting Rights Act, and Civil Rights Act “jurisprudence” alone will make it impossible for us to govern, even if we could somehow appoint a few more judges that won’t expand the prevailing corrupt interpretation to new frontiers desired by the broader legal profession.

Also, we are unfortunately not merely one Supreme Court Justice away from solving this problem. The courts do not hang in the balance in this election. They have long fallen off the abyss. The Fifth Circuit is arguably the least abusive of the 13 Circuits, yet it sided with a radical and illogical interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. Four of the nine judges that overturned election integrity were GOP appointees.

The courts are beyond repair, given the politics of the legal profession, one directional stare decisis, and the enshrinement of the Democrat racialized agenda into civil rights and the 14th Amendment. That ship has sailed a long time ago. The federal judiciary has become the super political branch without the check of term limits or elections.

Whether you are a fan of Trump or not, whether you believe in his promises or not, just remember that unless the courts are stripped down to size by Congress, any potential benefit of Republicans assuming power will be rendered moot by the eminent tribunal in all 13 circuits, not to mention the Supreme Court. Even if we scrub the Justice Department of the Eric Holder types, never forget that they have permanent positions where the power really lies – and that transcends elections.

Illegal aliens have never had more incentives and ability to vote in our elections as they do this cycle. After being told by the globalist elite they’re illegal entry into the country is without consequence, helps rather than hinders American workers, and unites the national culture, any existing moral qualms of further violating the law, such as by voting, have been thoroughly scrubbed away. Former president Bill Clinton all but ensured this in his speech at the DNC Convention last week.

Speaking directly to illegal aliens, Clinton stated to an applauding audience of delegates that “if you love this country, you’re working hard, you’re paying taxes and you’re obeying the law and you’d like to become a citizen, you should choose immigration reform over somebody that wants to send you back.” Unfortunately for Bill, illegal aliens (and non-citizens in general) aren’t supposed to be ‘choosing’ anyone. Like in every other country in the world, here in America only citizens are supposed to vote.

Despite its unprecedented foreign-born population (currently over 40 million), the US protects against illegal voter-registration by relying on an attestation system. Under federal law, provided one can show a driver’s license or social security number, all a non-citizen need to do if they really want to vote is check a box “confirming” they’re an eligible voter. In other words, it’s an honor system. This isn’t common in other arguably less important areas. Under legislation (oddly enough) signed by Bill Clinton, protective measures were put in place to ensure illegal aliens couldn’t apply for federal benefits. Rather than putting trust in the applicants themselves, the so-called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program was installed to help federal agencies confirm the immigration-status of all benefit-seeking applicants (illegal aliens, who by definition have no immigration records, cannot be identified on the system and are therefore blocked from receiving benefits). Despite the fact that an illegal vote casted is a citizen-vote cancelled, similar defensive measures are apparently not seen as warranted in the area of voting.

On both the state and federal levels, incentives for illegal alien-voting abound. State bills offering in-state tuition, driver’s and professional licenses, illegal alien-“sanctuary”, etc. are currently being debated in various parts of the country. For those illegal aliens who fall within President Obama’s blanket grants of deferred action (2 million for the renewable 2012 DACA program and 5 million for the currently frozen DAPA program), their incentives are obvious. With regards to DACA-recipients, they also have a newfound ability to register and vote due to their eligibility for federal identification documents, including driver’s licenses and SSNs. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), as of FY2014, 541,000 DACA-recipients had been allotted SSNs. Immediately after the 2014 DAPA amnesty was announced, Sen. Rob Portman of the swing-state of Ohio sent a letter to the president chastising his action for “afford[ing] potentially thousands of non-citizens in Ohio the opportunity to willfully or negligently register to vote and to vote” and for making voter protection in his state “significantly more difficult.”

Besides DAPA and DACA-beneficiaries, other non-citizens have the ability to vote due to their access to ID documents. Recipients of the deferred action program Temporary Protected Status (a population of 300,000) are eligible to receive SSNs. Meanwhile, amongst illegal aliens in general, the use of fake or stolen SSNs is commonplace. The SSA has estimated that 75 percent of all illegal aliens use either fake numbers or legitimate numbers stolen from legal residents—And yet numerous news outlets continue to use the phrase “undocumented immigrant.” This is why border states, like Arizona, suffer by far the highest rates of identity theft in the country.

The record-close election between Al Gore and George W. Bush led to the formation of a federal commission directed by former president Jimmy Carter to study voter reforms. Notably, its final report stated that better identification requirements were essential because, first, “[i]n close or disputed elections…a small amount of fraud could make the margin of difference… [a]nd second, the perception of possible fraud contributes to low confidence in the system.”

In this current election, where American confidence in general and the integrity of our laws has taken center stage, comments like Bill Clinton’s show exactly why the public’s so angry and frustrated. Whether disdaining democratically-enacted laws, such as our voting or immigration laws, is a shrewd or foolhardy campaign strategy, we shall see.

Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents.

Liberals who oppose efforts to prevent voter fraud claim that there is no fraud — or at least not any that involves voting in person at the polls.

But New York City’s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.

The Board of Elections, which has a $750 million annual budget and a work force of 350 people, reacted in classic bureaucratic fashion, which prompted one city paper to deride it as “a 21st-century survivor of Boss Tweed–style politics.” The Board approved a resolution referring the DOI’s investigators for prosecution. It also asked the state’s attorney general to determine whether DOI had violated the civil rights of voters who had moved or are felons, and it sent a letter of complaint to Mayor Bill de Blasio. Normally, I wouldn’t think de Blasio would give the BOE the time of day, but New York’s new mayor has long been a close ally of former leaders of ACORN, the now-disgraced “community organizing” group that saw its employees convicted of voter-registration fraud all over the country during and after the 2008 election. Greg Soumas, president of New York’s BOE, offered a justification for calling in the prosecutors: “If something was done in an untoward fashion, it was only done by DOI. We [are] unaware of any color of authority on the part of [DOI] to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves — and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.” The Board is bipartisan, and all but two of its members voted with Soumas. The sole exceptions were Democrat Jose Araujo, who abstained because the DOI report implicated him in hiring his wife and sister-and-law for Board jobs, and Republican Simon Shamoun.

Good-government groups are gobsmacked at Soumas’s refusal to smell the stench of corruption in his patronage-riddled empire. “They should focus not on assigning blame to others, but on taking responsibility for solving the problems themselves,” Dick Dadey of the watchdog group Citizens Union told the Daily News. “It’s a case of the Board of Elections passing the buck.” DOI officials respond that the use of undercover agents is routine in anti-corruption probes and that people should carefully read the 70-page report they’ve filed before criticizing it. They are surprised how little media attention their report has received.

You’d think more media outlets would have been interested, because the sloppiness revealed in the DOI report is mind-boggling. Young undercover agents were able to vote using the names of people three times their age, people who in fact were dead. In one example, a 24-year female agent gave the name of someone who had died in 2012 at age 87; the workers at the Manhattan polling site gave her a ballot, no questions asked. Even the two cases where poll workers turned away an investigator raise eyebrows. In the first case, a poll worker on Staten Island walked outside with the undercover investigator who had just been refused a ballot; the “voter” was advised to go to the polling place near where he used to live and “play dumb” in order to vote. In the second case, the investigator was stopped from voting only because the felon whose name he was using was the son of the election official at the polling place.

Shooting the messenger has been a typical reaction in other states when people have demonstrated just how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Guerrilla videographer James O’Keefe had three of his assistants visit precincts during New Hampshire’s January 2012 presidential primary. They asked poll workers whether their books listed the names of several voters, all deceased individuals still listed on voter-registration rolls. Poll workers handed out ten ballots, never once asking for a photo ID. O’Keefe’s team immediately gave back the ballots, unmarked, to precinct workers. Debbie Lane, a ballot inspector at one of the Manchester polling sites, later said: “I wasn’t sure what I was allowed to do. . . . I can’t tell someone not to vote, I suppose.” The only precinct in which O’Keefe or his crew did not obtain a ballot was one in which the local precinct officer had personally known the dead “voter.” New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, John Lynch, sputtered when asked about O’Keefe’s video, and he condemned the effort to test the election system even though no actual votes were cast. “They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if in fact they’re found guilty of some criminal act,” he roared. But cooler heads eventually prevailed, and the GOP state legislature later approved a voter-ID bill, with enough votes to override the governor’s veto. Despite an exhaustive and intrusive investigation, no charges were ever filed against any of O’Keefe’s associates.

Later in 2012, in Washington, D.C., one of O’Keefe’s assistants was able to obtain Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot even though Holder is 62 years old and bears no resemblance to the 22-year-old white man who obtained it merely by asking if Eric Holder was on the rolls. But the Department of Justice, which is currently suing Texas to block that state’s photo-ID law, dismissed the Holder ballot incident as “manufactured.” The irony was lost on the DOJ that Holder, a staunch opponent of voter-ID laws, could have himself been disenfranchised by a white man because Washington, D.C., has no voter-ID law. Polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of Americans — including clear majorities of African Americans and Hispanics — support such laws.

Liberals who oppose ballot-security measures claim that there are few prosecutions for voter fraud, which they take to mean that fraud doesn’t happen. But as the New York DOI report demonstrates, it is comically easy, given the sloppy-voter registration records often kept in America, to commit voter fraud in person. (A 2012 study by the Pew Research Center found that nationwide, at least 1.8 million deceased voters are still registered to vote.) And unless someone confesses, in-person voter fraud is very difficult to detect — or stop. New York’s Gothamist news service reported last September that four poll workers in Brooklyn reported they believed people were trying to vote in the name of other registered voters. Police officers observed the problems but did nothing because voter fraud isn’t under the police department’s purview.

What the DOI investigators were able to do was eerily similar to actual fraud that has occurred in New York before. In 1984, Brooklyn’s Democratic district attorney, Elizabeth Holtzman, released a state grand-jury report on a successful 14-year conspiracy that cast thousands of fraudulent votes in local, state, and congressional elections. Just like the DOI undercover operatives, the conspirators cast votes at precincts in the names of dead, moved, and bogus voters. The grand jury recommended voter ID, a basic election-integrity measure that New York has steadfastly refused to implement.

In states where non-photo ID is required, it’s also all too easy to manufacture records that allow people to vote. In 2012, the son of Congressman Jim Moran, the Democrat who represents Virginia’s Washington suburbs, had to resign as field director for his father’s campaign after it became clear that he had encouraged voter fraud. Patrick Moran was caught advising an O’Keefe videographer on how to commit in-person voter fraud. The scheme involved using a personal computer to forge utility bills that would satisfy Virginia’s voter-ID law and then relying on the assistance of Democratic lawyers stationed at the polls to make sure the fraudulent votes were counted. Last year, Virginia tightened its voter-ID law and ruled that showing a utility bill was no longer sufficient to obtain a ballot.

Given that someone who is dead, is in jail, or has moved isn’t likely to complain if someone votes in his name, how do we know that voter fraud at the polls isn’t a problem? An ounce of prevention — in the form of voter ID and better training of poll workers — should be among the minimum precautions taken to prevent an electoral miscarriage or meltdown in a close race.

After all, even a small number of votes can have sweeping consequences. Al Franken’s 312-vote victory in 2008 over Minnesota senator Norm Coleman gave Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 votes, which allowed them to pass Obamacare. Months after the Obamacare vote, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority finished comparing criminal records with voting rolls and identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken–Coleman race. Fox News random interviews with ten of those felons found that nine had voted for Franken, backing up national academic studies that show felons tend to vote strongly for Democrats.

Minnesota Majority took its findings to prosecutors across the state, but very few showed any interest in pursuing the issue. Some did, though, and 177 people have been convicted as of mid 2012 — not just “accused” but actually convicted — of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Probably the only reason the number of convictions isn’t higher is that the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that the person must have been both ineligible and must have “knowingly” voted unlawfully. Anyone accused of fraud is apt to get off by claiming he didn’t know he’d done anything wrong.

Given that we now know for certain how easy it is to commit undetectable voter fraud and how serious the consequences can be, it’s truly bizarre to have officials at the New York City Board of Elections and elsewhere savage those who shine a light on the fact that their modus operandi invites fraud. One might even think that they’re covering up their incompetence or that they don’t want to pay attention to what crimes could be occurring behind the curtains at their polling places. Or both. — John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for National Review Online. Along with Hans von Spakovsky, he is the author of Who’s Counting: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk​.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438754/james-okeefe-voter-fraud-videos-prove-voter-ID-laws-neededDemocrats Dismiss Voter-Fraud Worries, but Reality Intrudesby JOHN FUND August 7, 2016 7:22 PM @JOHNFUND O’Keefe claimed to be Eminem and the Detroit mayor, and poll workers offered him a ballot. Three federal courts have thrown out voter-ID laws in North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin in recent days. Left-wing judges accepted spurious evidence that such laws were racially discriminatory, and they also insisted there is little voter fraud to worry about. Last April, United States District Judge Lynn Adelman of Wisconsin claimed that “virtually no voter impersonation occurs” in Wisconsin and that “no evidence suggests that voter-impersonation fraud will become a problem at any time in the foreseeable future.”

Despite such sweeping statements, polls show that the general public is worried about fraud and bureaucratic incompetence in voting. According to a Pew Research Center survey, only 31 percent of Americans were confident that “the votes across the country were accurately counted” in the 2012 election. Small wonder. A separate Pew survey in 2012 found that one out of eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date, or a duplicate. Some 2.8 million people are registered in two or more states, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead. Guerilla filmmaker James O’Keefe is famous for having busted institutions ranging from the fraudulent voter-registration group ACORN to NPR. His Project Veritas team has also piled up an impressive array of videos documenting that the Pew survey numbers on voter registration could easily be translated into fraudulent votes with very little chance of detection. In New Hampshire, he found it was easy to vote using the name of a dead person. In North Carolina, political operatives encouraged his undercover associates to vote even if they were non-citizens. In 2014, political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest, writing in the Washington Post, summarized their finding, based on their examination of thousands of voter interviews from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study: “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008, and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010. Last week in Michigan, O’Keefe struck again, testing the state’s voter-ID law, which allows non-ID holders to vote if they merely fill out an affidavit claiming they are who they say they are. Such affidavits are almost never checked. Using this ruse, O’Keefe told different poll workers he was Detroit mayor Mike Duggan, Wayne State University Law School dean Jocelyn Benson, and columnist Nancy Kaffer of the Detroit Free Press — all whom strongly oppose voter-ID laws. In each case, poll workers offered him primary ballots for the person he was claiming to be. He was also offered the ballot of legendary Michigan rapper Eminem, whose real name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III. In all but one sting, the poll workers offered him a ballot, though he never actually accepted a ballot or cast an illegal vote.VIDEO 9 MINSJames O'Keefe Proves Why Voter ID is Necessary in Michigan

Published on 2 Aug 2016In this video, James O'Keefe visits various polling locations in Michigan and requests the ballot of Detroit Free Press Columnist Brian Dickerson. O'Keefe is offered the ballot without ID, proving that voter fraud is easy to commit.

The one exception was O’Keefe’s effort, in Birmingham, Mich., to be offered the ballot of Brian Dickerson of the Detroit Free Press. The veteran poll worker he met there was a personal acquaintance of Henderson’s and became suspicious. Henderson then wrote a column dismissing O’Keefe’s ploy, saying, “What’s dubious is his assertion that the crime would have gone unnoticed or unpunished.” Oh, really? Even with a voter-ID requirement, O’Keefe’s team received multiple offers of ballots that belonged to real voters. In states without an ID law, his team hasn’t even faced an affadavit requirement.

BREAKING : Donald Trump Responds to Obama With a Statement on His FailuresAUG 05, 2016by ADMINin DIASPORAEarlier Monday afternoon Obama delivered a press conference and sadly, his main focus of energy and angst was Donald Trump.Not ISIS.Not cop-killers.Not our wretched economy.Donald Trump responded by speaking on Obama’s failures.Trump’s official statement is below:– AUGUST 02, 2016 – TRUMP STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FAILED LEADERSHIP ”“President Obama has been a failed leader who along with Secretary of State Clinton created a foreign policy that has destabilized the world and made it an unsafe place. He is the one who is unfit to be President and Hillary Clinton is equally unfit.Obama-Clinton have single-handedly destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, and allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi.Then they put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons. Then they allowed dozens of veterans to die waiting for medical care that never came. Hillary Clinton put the whole country at risk with her illegal email server, deleted evidence of her crime, and lied repeatedly about her conduct which endangered us all.They released criminal aliens into our country who killed one innocent American afterFOR ENTIRE ARTICLE CLICK LINK http://truthfeed.com/breaking-donald-trump-responds-to-obama-with-a-statement-on-his-failures/14742/

Featured at the Democratic National Convention as an ardent critic of Donald Trump, Khizr Khan — the father of a Muslim-American U.S. soldier killed in Iraq — has been hailed as a hero as he continues to speak out against the Republican presidential nominee.

However, details about Khan’s background are emerging that might at least partially explain the motivation behind his dislike of Trump, the Washington Times reports.

According to his website, Khan — an immigration lawyer — helps clients gain E-2 and EB-5 visas, which provide green cards to foreign investors along with their families. Yet this particular visa program is highly controversial and has been accused of allowing foreigners to buy residency.

“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center of Immigration Studies.“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000. … It’s an amazing deal. Compared to other countries, America is the Walmart of investor visa programs,” she added.

In exchange for their $500,000 investment, immigrants who opt for this program receive green cards for themselves, their spouses and all of their children under the age of 21.

In addition to complaints about the pay-to-play nature of these visas, there have also been instances where immigrant investors are scammed out of their money.

While there is no indication that Khan has been involved in any shady business dealings, some individuals might see Trump’s stance on immigration as a threat to such lawyers, who undoubtedly stand to profit from our current immigration system.

Furthermore, Khan’s background in Islamic law has raised several questions pertaining to his ideological motivations. Writing in 1983 for the Houston Journal of International Law, Khan said that all judicial systems must be subordinate to Sharia

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/presidential-race-2016-candidate-profile-%E2%80%93-donald-trump-rPresidential Race 2016 Candidate Profile – Donald Trump, R"I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth. Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing."BY RYAN MAURO Wed, June 17, 2015The presidential race for 2016 is gearing up and candidates are preparing themselves for the upcoming campaign. As each candidate announces their intention to run, Clarion Project will provide a summary of each candidate’s positions on issues relating to Islamic extremism in order to help our readers make the most informed possible choice on voting day. Should there be any significant changes, we intend to update our Donald TrumpDonald Trumpreaders on the positions of any given candidate.As Clarion is a bipartisan organization, we will not be endorsing any party or any candidate. All information provided is intended as informative only and should not be taken as evidence of Clarion’s preference for any given candidate.Businessman Donald Trump declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on June 16, 2015. The following is the Clarion Project's compilation of Donald Trumps's positions on Islamist extremism. It will be updated as the campaign develops.Relevant ExperienceBillionaire real estate mogul and president of the Trump Organization.Says he has extensive international business with foreign governments.

​Domestic IslamistsShut down mosques that preach extremism and are "loaded for bear."Would revoke the passports of Americans who travel abroad to join the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). Initially advocated a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration and has since scaled it back to only Muslim countries with major terrorist activity. In his national security speech in June, he proposed using ideological vetting such as support for extremist beliefs or links to extremist groups (not necessarily terrorists) in deciding who gets to enter the U.S. He cited polls showing high levels of support for Sharia governance in countries like Afghanistan.

Egypt & the Muslim BrotherhoodOpposed the Obama Administration's pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to give up power.

IntelligenceSupports enhanced interrogation of terror suspects (considered torture by critics).IranOpposes the nuclear deal with Iran, calling it "terrible," but "loves the concept" of a good deal.Thanked by the wife of an American pastor imprisoned in Iran for bringing attention to his captivity.Endorsed airstrikes on Iran's nuclear program in 2007.ISIS, Iraq & SyriaOnly candidate to support Russia's military intervention in Syria against rebels fighting ISIS, as well as ISIS and Al-Qaeda.Opposes involvement in the civil war and arming rebels.Opposes a policy of regime change towards the Assad dictatorship.“I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth. Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in. And you let Mobil go in, and you let our great oil companies go in. Once you take that oil, they have nothing left.”“I would hit [ISIS] so hard. I would find you a proper general, I would find the Patton or MacArthur. I would hit them so hard your head would spin.”U.S. should not get involved in Syria by supporting the rebels or launching airstrikes in retaliation for the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons.Opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.Opposed the invasion of Iraq and any policy aimed at removing Saddam Hussein from power.U.S. should take Iraq's oil and reimburse the countries who were involved in the 2003 invasion and give $1 million to the family of every U.S. soldier who died in Iraq.

LibyaWould only support military action in Libya against the Muammar Gaddafi leadership if the U.S. gets to take the country's oil.

Gulf StatesWould force Saudi Arabia and other countries to pay for the U.S. military presence that protects them.

FOR ANYONE BUYING INTO THE STORY ABOUT TRUMP EJECTING A BABY AT HIS RALLY…

Statement from Devan Cierra Ebert who “was removed” with her crying baby at a Trump Rally:

“I was the mother in his rally on Tuesday, August 2nd, in Ashburn, VA, with the baby who started to cry. I would just like him to know personally that I, by no means felt I was ever “kicked out” of his rally.

I excused myself and my child when he awoke from his nap and began to cry. It was only because I had to grab my child’s belongings and then make my way out of the aisle I was seated in that I wasn’t out of there sooner.

I realize Mr. Trump doesn’t know me personally, but for those that do, know that I am the first one to excuse myself and my child when he begins to cry because I personally believe it’s rude to disturb anyone else’s ability to hear what they came to see. I’ve left movies, violin recitals, and other events if I felt my child was disturbing others. It is the considerate thing to do.

I stood right outside the doors of the auditorium continuing to watch and listen to what Mr. Trump had to say. In fact, the police that were right outside in the same hallway with me, treated me with so much respect it was incredible. They were so kind and made me feel welcomed to stand with them.

I fully support Mr. Trump. I thought he responded very graciously to my child crying and he made a lighthearted moment out of what I usually consider to be stressful. I actually was out of the auditorium before he even made his follow up comment about my child and even then, when I was informed of his comment,

I laughed. I understand he says things jokingly, and I understand no one wants to speak over or struggle to listen over a crying baby.

I am in no way offended and I again reiterate, Mr. Trump NEVER kicked me or my child out of the Briar Woods High School, Trump rally.

And for the record, while my child and I stood outside of the auditorium, my eleven year old stepdaughter and my Grandmother sat inside the auditorium and continued to support and listen to everything Mr. Trump had to say.

We all were so excited to be able to see Mr. Trump so close to home. I didn’t have a babysitter to watch my kids and honestly, to me it was a historical moment that I am happy that my kids were there for.

I apologize for the trouble this has caused Mr.Trump. The media has severely blown this out of proportion and made it out to be something that it wasn’t and is clearly using this as political gain for the Democratic party.

The rap on Donald Trump is he’s all bluster. The New York Times says he’s offering “incoherent mishmash.” Former GOP rival Ted Cruz claimed Trump has “no idea” how to fix the economy.

Don’t believe it.

The Trump campaign is putting forward proposals to fix problems from the long waits for medical care at Veterans Affairs facilities to the impending collapse of ObamaCare.

Check out Trump’s economic plan, for starters. Unlike Hillary Clinton’s anti-business agenda, Trump’s plan would actually help unemployed Americans get back to work.

Trump slashes the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, down from the current 40 percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world. Not all American companies pay that staggering rate, but even after deductions and accounting maneuvers, companies in the United States end up clobbered by taxes nearly twice the global average (24 percent).

In Ireland, a magnet for tax-weary companies, the rate is only 12.5 percent and their economy is growing about three times as fast as ours. Conversely, Japan and Argentina are stuck in the doldrums along with America, partly because of their high rates.

Trump also proposes a one-time 10 percent repatriation tax on profits US companies made overseas and kept there to avoid the 40 percent rate. That bargain could lure back as much as $2.5 trillion in capital urgently needed here.

To promote investing in plants and equipment, Trump would allow companies to write off the purchases the year they’re made, rather than over several years, as current law requires.

Economist Larry Kudlow predicts that if Trump’s corporate tax plan becomes law, you’ll see “a tremendous movement of capital and labor back to the United States.”

Trump’s lower 15 percent business rate would also apply to small businesses that usually get taxed at individual income tax rates. That would give a break to mom-and-pop operations, startups and other small businesses that are the source of most jobs.

Compare Trump’s blueprint with Clinton’s nightmare scenario: Higher taxes, more tax complexity and an avalanche of new regulations. Over-regulation has depressed economic growth for the last 15 years.

The Obama administration suffocated business with 81,000 pages of new regulations in 2015 alone. Hillary is pushing for even more — with controls on hiring, pay, bonuses and overtime to promote “fairer growth.” Translation: gender and racial preferences, plus meddling in how much you get paid.

Remember Obama’s statement, “You didn’t build that.” Hillary assumes “You don’t own that.” Government will run your business. Hillary wants companies to stop maximizing quarterly earnings for shareholders — what she derides as “quarterly capitalism.” She wants “farsighted investments” (whatever that means). Companies that can get out of the United States will rush for the exits.

She’s even promising an end to “the boom-and-bust cycles on Wall Street.” As plausible as ending rainy days.

Trump’s “make America rich” plan targets impoverished cities like Baltimore with incentives for companies to move there. For African-Americans, whose unemployment rate is twice as high as the nation’s overall, Trump’s has a four-letter remedy: J-O-B-S.

For young blacks with no job experience, he’s got plans. One is borrowed from the left-leaning Century Foundation. Every summer, the State Department brings about 100,000 young foreigners into the United States to work in restaurants, camps and seaside resorts under J-1 visas. Trump says convert the program into a jobs bank for our own inner-city youth.

Meanwhile, Hillary is stoking racial hatred, telling black voters they’re victims of “systemic racism” and meeting with Al Sharpton. Hillary says public schools should stop disciplining and suspending black teenagers who misbehave. But self-discipline is precisely what’s needed to succeed at school and on the job. While Hillary panders, Trump offers specifics to get these young people on the job ladder.

Clinton’s reputed to be the policy wonk, but she’s just a cynical politician. Trump, who’s rolling out serious policies to get Americans working, is the real deal.

Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

New Information On Khizr Khan Sheds Light On His Opposition To Trump"... notoriously abused ..."Gerry Urbanek August 1, 2016 at 5:50pm

Featured at the Democratic National Convention as an ardent critic of Donald Trump, Khizr Khan — the father of a Muslim-American U.S. soldier killed in Iraq — has been hailed as a hero as he continues to speak out against the Republican presidential nominee.

However, details about Khan’s background are emerging that might at least partially explain the motivation behind his dislike of Trump, the Washington Times reports.

According to his website, Khan — an immigration lawyer — helps clients gain E-2 and EB-5 visas, which provide green cards to foreign investors along with their families. Yet this particular visa program is highly controversial and has been accused of allowing foreigners to buy residency.

RELATED STORIES

Khizr Khan Declares That Allah Discredited Donald TrumpTrump Set To Make Paul Ryan AnnouncementKey Figure In Trump Campaign Makes Bold Declaration About Obama’s Religious Beliefs“The E-2 and EB-5 are two of the most notoriously abused visa categories that essentially allow wealthy foreigners to buy their way to U.S. residency, and possibly citizenship, with a relatively modest investment,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director for the Center of Immigration Studies.

“The EB-5 is literally a ‘citizenship for sale’ program in which a visa for a whole family can be bought for as little $500,000. … It’s an amazing deal. Compared to other countries, America is the Walmart of investor visa programs,” she added.

In exchange for their $500,000 investment, immigrants who opt for this program receive green cards for themselves, their spouses and all of their children under the age of 21.

In addition to complaints about the pay-to-play nature of these visas, there have also been instances where immigrant investors are scammed out of their money.

While there is no indication that Khan has been involved in any shady business dealings, some individuals might see Trump’s stance on immigration as a threat to such lawyers, who undoubtedly stand to profit from our current immigration system.

Furthermore, Khan’s background in Islamic law has raised several questions pertaining to his ideological motivations. Writing in 1983 for the Houston Journal of International Law, Khan said that all judicial systems must be subordinate to Sharia law, otherwise known as Islamic law.

“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims,” wrote Khan in his work, “Juristic Classification Of Islamic Law.”

TRENDING STORIES

Obama Opens Prison Gates For Record Number Of Convicted InmatesObama Pens Glamour Magazine Piece – Gives Plug For ClintonLewandowski Brings Up Obama Birther Issue And CNN Panel Goes WildIn other words, all legal systems and juridical works should be open to reconsideration by Muslims and must be subordinate to the law of Islam, including the U.S. Constitution.

To make matters worse, Khan credits Said Ramadan — the head of the Islamic Center in Geneva and a major figure within the Muslim Brotherhood — as a contributor to his writings.

1Headlines, social media and the campaign trail all have been dominated for the past several days by Khizr Khan and Donald Trump. (Meanwhile, never mind the new bombshells about Hillary Clinton that have been released, including her and her campaign’s real ties toRussia and Hillary’s perjury about providing arms to none other than ISIS, just to name a couple other big stories that might’ve warranted a headline or two.)

Khan, of course, is the father of a fallen Muslim U.S. soldier, who attacked Donald Trump at the DNC for never having sacrificed for his country. He became an overnight Democrat hero, as Dems jumped to praise this Muslim who spoke out against Trump. And, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that Trump has come under further fire for his response to Khan’s attack, acknowledging Khan’s son was a hero but suggesting Khan himself had no right to criticize Trump in front of a national audience.

Trump also noted that, ‘the real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorist who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country and do us further harm.”

Now, even ISIS is wading into the controversy, both seeming to reinforce Trump’s comments about the real problem being radical Islam — and adding a message aimed at Khan’s parents.

As Fox News reports:

In the new edition of its full-color, glossy magazine, ISIS mocks those who claim Islam is a peaceful religion, and even wades into the controversy surrounding Donald Trump and the parents of a dead Muslim U.S. soldier.

The 15th issue of Dabiq, published on July 31, is titled “Break The Cross” and appears to be primarily directed at those that ISIS considers its enemies, particularly Christians. One section is devoted to the words and actions of Pope Francis and is headlined “In The Words Of Our Enemies.” [Pope Francis just yesterday argued ti was “not right to identify Islam with terrorism” — suggesting that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism. Yeah….]

An editorial titled “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” takes aim at Westerners and “apostate ‘Imams’ in the West” who refuse to define ISIS’ motivation as being Islamic. ISIS calls this rhetoric purely political.

And on this one point, we have to agree with ISIS.

“Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool,” the article says. “The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle.”

The ISIS author of the “Why We Hate You” piece aims to settle the argument, and “clarify” in “unequivocal terms” that ISIS is Islamic. The author says that those on the “social fringe” who identify Islam with ISIS are correct.

“There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative,” the article says.

Showing just how quickly the magazine was produced – and how intently members of ISIS watch U.S. politics – an image in the publication shows the grave of Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Adding its own voice to the debate, ISIS declares in a caption below Khan’s grave that the soldier is an “apostate” of the Muslim religion and urges other Muslims to “beware” a similar fate.

Continued...........WHOA: ISIS has message for Muslim father who slammed Trump…Headlines, social media and the campaign trail all have been dominated for the past several days by Khizr Khan and Donald Trump. (Meanwhile, never mind the new bombshells about Hillary Clinton that have been released, including her and her campaign’s real ties to Russia and Hillary’s perjury about providing arms to none other than ISIS, just to name a couple other big stories that might’ve warranted a headline or two.)

Khan, of course, is the father of a fallen Muslim U.S. soldier, who attacked Donald Trump at the DNC for never having sacrificed for his country. He became an overnight Democrat hero, as Dems jumped to praise this Muslim who spoke out against Trump. And, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that Trump has come under further fire for his response to Khan’s attack, acknowledging Khan’s son was a hero but suggesting Khan himself had no right to criticize Trump in front of a national audience.

Trump also noted that, ‘the real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorist who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country and do us further harm.”

Advertisement - story continues belowRELATED STORIES

Khan just went on live TV and declared ALLAH is forcing Trump to...The one thing Trump NEEDS to do, no one is saying, so I will...400 DEAD; Obama's response says EVERYTHINGNow, even ISIS is wading into the controversy, both seeming to reinforce Trump’s comments about the real problem being radical Islam — and adding a message aimed at Khan’s parents.

As Fox News reports:

In the new edition of its full-color, glossy magazine, ISIS mocks those who claim Islam is a peaceful religion, and even wades into the controversy surrounding Donald Trump and the parents of a dead Muslim U.S. soldier.The 15th issue of Dabiq, published on July 31, is titled “Break The Cross” and appears to be primarily directed at those that ISIS considers its enemies, particularly Christians. One section is devoted to the words and actions of Pope Francis and is headlined “In The Words Of Our Enemies.” [Pope Francis just yesterday argued ti was “not right to identify Islam with terrorism” — suggesting that social injustice and idolatry of money were among the prime causes of terrorism. Yeah….]An editorial titled “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” takes aim at Westerners and “apostate ‘Imams’ in the West” who refuse to define ISIS’ motivation as being Islamic. ISIS calls this rhetoric purely political.

And on this one point, we have to agree with ISIS.

“Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool,” the article says. “The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle.”

The ISIS author of the “Why We Hate You” piece aims to settle the argument, and “clarify” in “unequivocal terms” that ISIS is Islamic. The author says that those on the “social fringe” who identify Islam with ISIS are correct.

“There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative,” the article says.

Showing just how quickly the magazine was produced – and how intently members of ISIS watch U.S. politics – an image in the publication shows the grave of Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Adding its own voice to the debate, ISIS declares in a caption below Khan’s grave that the soldier is an “apostate” of the Muslim religion and urges other Muslims to “beware” a similar fate.

It would appear ISIS may be including the likes of us in talking about those ‘painted as social fringe, so their voices are dismissed,’ so that ‘a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative.’ As regular readers know, Col. West in particular has long been one of the most vocal and informed in our nation about the real threat of radical Islam — and calling out leaders, such as President Obama and Hillary Clinton, for their dangerous refusal to label ISIS as “radical Islamic terror.”

We all grieve for the loss of Mr. Khan’s son. Where we diverge, it seems, is that some of us are willing to recognize and name the enemy — the first step to defeating it — while others continue to play a very dangerous game of political correctness. How many more sons and daughters — regardless of their faith — must die before the masses wake up to the false narrative our own leaders are pushing?